IT would appear to be self-evident that the recycling of household waste makes complete sense in a world where scarce resources are being used up at an alarming rate.

If metals, plastics – most of which are derived from oil – and materials such as cardboard can be retrieved and reused, the consumption of energy as well as commodities will be reduced.

This general argument, however, can and does break down in the real world. For example, if it costs more to recycle a material than to dispose of it, retrieval makes little sense. Equally, if there is no ready market for a recycled material, there is little point in separating and collecting it.

But in spite of such limiting factors, Jersey is making substantial progress on the recycling front. Most Islanders accept the logic of putting glass in a separate bin for collection, and increasing numbers of people are using the re-cycling depots which have been set up around the Island.

The latest development involves St Helier, a parish assembly having last night agreed that kerbside recycling should be introduced for town residents – though the scheme, enthusiastically promoted by the Constable, Simon Crowcroft, faced significant opposition.

At the parish assembly, which attracted a substantial number of parishioners and other interested parties, the point was made that those who live in flats might not have the space to separate and store various categories of rubbish. This is a valid objection, but, as Mr Crowcroft emphasised, the new scheme is voluntary, so those who are unable – or unwilling – to co-operate can continue to dispose of household waste in ways to which they have grown accustomed.

That said, the voluntary nature of the scheme is clearly a weakness in that there can be no guarantee that sufficient numbers of people will make the effort to participate and make it worthwhile.

Meanwhile, kerbside recycling is quite obviously not to the liking of the parish’s manual workers. Although they have been promised that new procedures will not lead to redundancies and might even produce new jobs, they appear to be very wary about alterations to established working practices.

Unfortunately, such routine suspicion of almost any change seems to be par for the course, though in this case the workers’ recalcitrance will not stand in the way of a project which, should it be successful, will change attitudes to waste as well as the means of its disposal.